Wilson v. . Sandifer
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Construction of Bond — Parol Evidence Inadmissible to Vary Written Contract. Civil ActioN, tried at Fall Term, 1875, of MecKleNbüRG Superior Court; before Schenck, J. The suit was brought to sell land for. partition among the parties, plaintiffs and defendants, as tenants in common. By-virtue of a decree in the cause the land was sold and a part of it was bought by the defendant T. T. Sandifer, who gave notes for the purchase money.
Read the full summary
Construction of Bond — Parol Evidence Inadmissible to Vary Written Contract. Civil ActioN, tried at Fall Term, 1875, of MecKleNbüRG Superior Court; before Schenck, J. The suit was brought to sell land for. partition among the parties, plaintiffs and defendants, as tenants in common. By-virtue of a decree in the cause the land was sold and a part of it was bought by the defendant T. T. Sandifer, who gave notes for the purchase money. The defendant Sandifer alleged that certain of the other tenants in common had agreed in writing to indemnify him against loss in the event that the title of one…
1Opinion of the CourtReade, J.
1. This is not to be treated as an original proceeding but as a motion founded upon a petition in the original proceeding for partition. There cannot therefore be any trouble about parties or about notice.
2. We agree with His Honor that the writing in question is not an indemnity but is simply a mutual agreement among the parties to it to resist any claim which might be set up by “the heirs of John M. Wilson” to a share in the estate of Isaac A. Wilson, bequeathed to him by his father.
3. We are also of the opinion that the parol evidence offered to prove that said writing was intended to be…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Dail v. . JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
- Sansom v. . WarrenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- Nickelson v. . RevesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
- Elliott v. . WhedbeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886